Chapter 2: THE NATURE OF THE SEPARATION

11) How did the ego originate, and
what is to prevent the separation from happening again?

This is unquestionably the most frequently
asked question of all, and it seems as if every student of A Course
in Miracles has wondered about this at one time or another. We have
been impressed over the years by the ingenuity with which Course students
have framed this question in many different forms; yet the basic question
itself can be restated in this way: "If God is perfect and unified, and
has a perfect and unified Son, how could an imperfect thought of separation
and division have possibly arisen within such a Mind?"'

Jesus' answer to this question in the
Course comes within a non-dualistic framework, and will hardly satisfy
an intellectually inquisitive mind that demands an answer on its own terms.
However, within the dualistic framework that we experience as our reality,
the question is really a statement masquerading in question form, "asked"
by an ego mind in order to establish its own reality and unique identity.
Therefore, the questioner is really saying: "I believe I am here, and now
I want you to explain to me how I got here."

Consciousness, being the first split
introduced into the mind of the dreaming Son, is an ego state where a perceiver
and a perceived seem to exist as separate "realities." Consciousness results
in a concept of a limited false self that is separate and uncertain, seeming
to experience an opposite to the true Self as God created It. And it is
this false self that believes it is "here" and "asks" the question about
its own seeming origin, thereby seeking to verify it. In truth, however,
imperfection cannot emanate from perfection, and an imperfect thought of
separation and division cannot arise from the perfect Mind of God's perfect
Son, in which opposites cannot exist. Only in a world of dreams can these
absurdities, and the beliefs that foster such uncertainty lead to musings
like this.

The question therefore can only be asked
by those who believe and experience that they are indeed separate and distinct,
and it can only be answered by someone who agrees with this premise that
the impossible has in fact happened, and therefore requires and even demands
an explanation. Thus, only a dreaming ego would ask such a question, since
a Son of God, certain of his Identity in Heaven and awake in God, could
not even conceive of the separation which is the basis for asking the question
in the first place. And obviously, if in reality the separation never happened
once,
how could it possibly happen a second time? Therefore, once again,
it is a trick question, much like the comedian's question, "When did you
stop beating your wife?" which, if answered, can only incriminate the person
responding.

Jesus directly addresses this question
two times: The first is found in the text, where he gives a very practical
answer to what was originally a question posed by William Thetford, Helen's
colleague and friend, as she was taking down the dictation:

It is reasonable to ask how
the mind could ever have made the ego. In fact, it is the best question
you could ask, There is, however, no point in giving an answer in terms
of the past because the past does not matter, and history would not exist
if the same errors were not being repeated in the present (T-4.II.1:1-3).

In other words, why worry about how and
why the separation happened in the distant past, when you are still making
the same choice to be separate in the present?

The next answer comes in two parts,
and is found in the clarification of terms, the appendix to the manual
for teachers. Here, Jesus' answer is much more to the point as it addresses
the pseudo-nature of the question itself, and his answer is reflected in
our discussion above:

The ego will demand many answers
that this course does not give. It does not recognize as questions the
mere form of a question to which an answer is impossible. The ego may ask,
"How did the impossible occur?", "To what did the impossible happen?",
and may ask this in many forms. Yet there is no answer; only an experience.
Seek only this, and do not let theology delay you (C-in.4).

Who asks you to define the ego and explain
how it arose can be but he who thinks it real, and seeks by definition
to ensure that its illusive nature is concealed behind the words that seem
to make it so.

There is no definition for a lie that
serves to make it true (C-2.2:5-3: 1).

Reproduced with the kind permission of Gloria and
Kenneth
Wapnick and the Foundation for A Course in Miracles